Ex Parte Patil et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201612839529 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/839,529 07/20/2010 Abhishek P. Patil 36738 7590 10/03/2016 ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES 750B STREET SUITE 3120 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 200902941.01 8366 EXAMINER BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): Noelle@rogitz.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com J ohn@rogitz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ABHISHEK P. PATIL, DJUNG N. NGUYEN, and XIANGPENG JING Appeal2015-008249 Application 12/839,529 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 17-21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dowens (US 2011/0023069 Al; publ. Jan. 27, 2011) and Finseth (US 2005/0028207 Al; publ. Feb. 3, 2005). Ans. 2-9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dowens, Finseth, and Morris (US 2011/0107382 Al; publ. May 5, 2011). Ans. 9. Appeal2015-008249 Application 12/839,529 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dowens, Finseth, and Unger (US 2008/0183815 Al; publ. July 31, 2008). Ans. 10. Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dowens, Finseth, and Rosenberg (US 2006/0161621 Al; publ. July 20, 2006). Ans. 10-13. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dowens, Finseth, Rosenberg, and Sezan (US 2006/0174277 Al; publ. Aug. 3, 2006). Ans. 13-14. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "alerting users of Internet-enabled CE devices such as but not limited to TVs, digital radios, and game consoles when desired Internet content becomes available." Spec. 1 :4---6. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the disputed limitation emphasized: 1. CE device comprising: at least one processor configured for controlling at least one display and for communicating with the Internet through at least one network interface; the processor configured for accessing at least one computer readable storage medium with instructions which when executed by the processor configure the processor for: establishing a user-centric account with an Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) system server; and establishing a privacy policy by which an affiliated user affiliated with the account selects among plural options to provide viewing activity of the user to other users and to send comments pertaining to viewing activity to other users, such that the processor when accessing the instructions is configured to present a first user interface (UI) on the display to enable the 2 Appeal2015-008249 Application 12/839,529 affiliated user to establish a first privacy setting for viewing activity and a second UI on the display listing a first option selectable to establish the first privacy setting for comments in addition to viewing activity and at least a second option selectable to establish a second, different privacy setting for comments. ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-8 AND 21 OVER DO WENS AND FINSETH The Examiner finds Dowens and Finseth teach all limitations of claim 1. Ans. 3-5; see also Ans. 14--15. The Examiner finds Finseth teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 4 (citing Finseth i-fi-1 81-82, 85-86); see also Ans. 15 "a second UI can be used to set the same policy for comments that was set for the viewing activity"). Appellants present the following principal argument: The relied-upon paragraphs in relevant part simply state that among other items; users can share comments (paragraph 81 ). Paragraph 86, which summarizes the Uis discussed later on in Finseth, states that the user first selects the group with whom to share viewing preference information, then what type of information to share with that group, including comments. There is no indication in these teachings or in the Uis shown in the figures described following the summary of paragraph 86 (figure 9-11 and 13-16) of a UI listing (1) a first option selectable to establish the first privacy setting for comments in addition to viewing activity, and (2) a second option selectable to establish a second, different privacy setting for comments. In fact, none of the Uis in Fin[s]eth so much as contain the word "comments", much less the options in the combination recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 1-2; see also Appellants' Drawings, Figs. 5 and 7. 3 Appeal2015-008249 Application 12/839,529 We do not see any error in the Examiner's finding that Finseth teaches the disputed limitation. In considering the disclosure of a reference, "it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Finseth (i-f 81) discloses: A user must also select what information to share with the selected recipient, as represented by box 134. A user may choose to share the entire contents of his/her user-specific sub-history table with the selected recipient. A user may choose to tell the recipient only about a specific television program. Using remote control 86 (FIG. 3) or another input device such as an infrared keyboard, a user can also share specific comments or reviews regarding a television program. Finseth (i-f 86) discloses: "A member of a group can select to share specific television program information including attached notes or comments, the entire contents of their respective selection history table, or summary preference information similarly to sharing viewing preference information with individual users." Appellants' argument does not show error in the contested finding in view of Finseth's disclosures of an option to provide viewing activity of the user to other users, and an option to send comments pertaining to viewing activity to other users. Finseth i1i1 81, 86. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably understood Finseth's option to provide viewing activity of the user to other users together with Finseth's option to provide (or not provide) comments pertaining to the viewing activity to other users discloses the functionality for the user to select these options. Finseth' s option to provide (or not provide) comments pertaining to viewing activity 4 Appeal2015-008249 Application 12/839,529 allows the user to select the same or a different setting for comments as the setting for activity (activity may be shared or not shared; comments may be shared or not shared). Thus, this appeal hinges on whether or not a skilled artisan would have understood that Finseth further teaches allowing the user to select these options in a second UI on the display, as claimed. We find that Finseth's disclosures, to a skilled artisan, convey well- known reasonable ways to allow the user to select the disclosed options. We recognize that Finseth does not explicitly illustrate Uis identical to those disclosed in Appellants' patent application in Figures 5 and 7. Nonetheless, the lack of a specific illustration of these Uis in Finseth does not preclude a finding that, a skilled artisan would infer (Preda, 401 F.2d at 826) Finseth teaches the options discussed in Finseth (i-fi-f 81, 86) may be presented in well-known reasonable ways, including presenting both options on an UI on the display. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-8 and 21, which are not separately argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 17, 19, AND 20 OVER DO WENS, FINSETH, AND ROSENBERG The Examiner finds Dowens, Finseth, and Rosenberg teach all limitations ofclaim 17. Ans. 10-12; see also Ans. 15-16. Claim 17 recites the following disputed limitation: presenting a first user interface (UI) on a display of the CE device to enable a user of the CE device to establish a first privacy setting for viewing activity and a second UI on the display listing a first option selectable to establish the first privacy setting for comments in addition to viewing activity and at least a second option selectable to establish a second, different privacy setting for comments. 5 Appeal2015-008249 Application 12/839,529 Appellants present the same principal argument for claim 17 as presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 5---6, Reply Br. 3. We do not see any error in the Examiner's finding that Finseth teaches the disputed limitation for reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1. That is, the lack of a specific illustration of claim 17 's recited UI in Finseth does not preclude a finding that, a skilled artisan would infer (Preda, 401 F .2d at 826) Finseth teaches the options discussed in Finseth (i-fi-f 81, 86) may be presented in well-known reasonable ways, including presenting both options on an UI on the display. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17, as well as claims 19 and 20, which are not separately argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 10 OVER DO WENS, FINSETH, AND MORRIS Appellants do not argue claim 10 with particularity. See App. Br. 3- 6, Reply Br. 1-3. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 11 OVER DO WENS, FINSETH, AND UNGER Appellants do not argue claim 11 with particularity. See App. Br. 3- 6, Reply Br. 1-3. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. 6 Appeal2015-008249 Application 12/839,529 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 18 OVER DO WENS, FINSETH, ROSENBERG, AND SEZAN Appellants do not argue claim 18 with particularity. See App. Br. 3- 6, Reply Br. 1-3. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 7. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 17-21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation